Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 10:36:26 AM EST

No one likes political debates. No one watches them, and the campaigns hate them because they involve hours of preparation for something that they know no one will watch except by the opposing campaign to maybe catch a gaffe that can be used in a political attack ad. The answers to the questions are all scripted to prevent that, so no one really learns anything. Even the vaunted game changing first debate in the presidential campaign wound up meaning nothing. For all the hype about winning it, all it really did was make the campaign partially about Mitt Romney versus Big Bird. So, the public doesn't care and the campaigns would prefer them to not take place so they can devote energy towards things that will actually influence voters. The only purpose they serve is as leverage by challengers, who probably don't want to debate, so they can accuse incumbents of ducking the public for not wanting to debate (no incumbent up in the polls wants to debate since there's nothing but bad that can happen).

So, who likes debates? Tim Skubick. Tim Skubick likes debates because he often moderates them. And, Tim Skubick is sad that no one likes that the thing that elevates him is increasingly inconsequential in political campaigns. To make clear what he's on about, Tim Skubick has attached a photo to his column about making debates more important of him moderating a debate.

Whether you know it or not, Michigan citizens have been getting the short end of the stick when it comes to seeing our major candidates in legitimate and revealing debates.

In the last U.S. Senate primary with three Republicans in the field, there was only one debate - and that happened at the last minute.

It didn’t happen at all in the U.S. Senate general election between Debbie Stabenow and Pete Hoekstra. Shame on them, shame on you, and shame on the media for not demanding at least one chance to compare them side by side.